A modest step forward for Ireland.

[osarusan]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0719/breaking29.html

The Civil Partnership Bill, which provides legal recognition for same-sex couples in Ireland for the first time, was signed into law today.


Civil Partnership Bill signed into law
The Bill was signed into law by President Mary McAleese at Áras an Uachtaráin this morning
It extends marriage-like benefits to gay and lesbian couples in the areas of property, social welfare, succession, maintenance, pensions and tax.
The act also offers additional rights and protections for other cohabiting couples including a redress scheme for financially dependent long-term cohabitants on the end of a relationship.

not everybody is happy however -

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0708/1224274269152.html?via=rel


Three FF Senators resign whip over Civil Partnership Bill
The Senators who resigned the whip claimed the Bill was flawed and discriminatory. They sought the introduction of a so-called “freedom of conscience” clause to allow people, such as registrars, to opt out of “facilitating” same-sex civil partnerships; an exemption from sanctions for religious bodies refusing to rent out properties for civil partnership celebrations; and the extension of protection to unmarried siblings living in the same house.

Not only FF either -
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/samesex-partnership-law-one-of-biggest-changes-in-90-years-2243238.html

Fine Gael TD Seymour Crawford asked Mr Ahern to bring in a "conscience clause" to allow people who have objections to presiding over a civil-partnership ceremony to opt out.

Not all that David Norris wanted, but a step in the right direction.

[Gather round]

We had a similar case recently, in Islington I think. A council-employed registrar argued that she should be exempted on moral grounds from having to marry gays. I suggested that scale might be a factor- if only one ceremony in a hundred was thus, she could be re-rostered without too much difficulty. But if 25- 50%, maybe she should consider an alternative job?

[Mr A]

I don't think scale is a factor at all. You're either willing to do your job or you're not.

[culloty82]

It's only fair that gay couples are entitled to legal recognition, but the amendment concerning unmarried partners was not only pointless, but also worrying. If a couple split up after three years, why should one party be entitled to a share of property/possessions they didn't pay for originally?

[osarusan]

A council-employed registrar argued that she should be exempted on moral grounds from having to marry gays. I suggested that scale might be a factor- if only one ceremony in a hundred was thus, she could be re-rostered without too much difficulty. But if 25- 50%, maybe she should consider an alternative job?

If the registrar had argued that, on moral grounds, she should be exempt from having to deal with unmarried mothers, what would the response have been?

[Macy]

If the registrar had argued that, on moral grounds, she should be exempt from having to deal with unmarried mothers, what would the response have been?
Or mixed race couples. You shouldn't legislate to give bigots a chance to be bigotted. It's a disgrace that fanantics already have the chance to discrimate in our schools and hospitals.

btw the aim of including other categories was, imo, an attempt to discredit gay relationships. Go back and look at Aherns contributions to the decriminalisation debates. Mullen/ Quinn/ IONA/ and the other Youth Defence types tried to get it to include siblings, since a Gay couple isn't the same as a hetrosexual couple, so throw in all people leaving together!

[Gather round]

I don't think scale is a factor at all. You're either willing to do your job or you're not

In the case I mentioned, the woman argued that she was able, and willing to do the job- but that a newly-introduced issue of conscience made it imposible to do so. In other words, there hadn't previously been any gay weddings on her watch. Without agreeing with her prejudice, as I'd see it, I hoped that some compromise/ re-roster could be found which enabled her to keep the job without inconveniencing anyone else.


If the registrar had argued that, on moral grounds, she should be exempt from having to deal with unmarried mothers, what would the response have been?

From me, the same. Depends how many single mothers there were.


Or mixed race couples. You shouldn't legislate to give bigots a chance to be bigotted. It's a disgrace that fanantics already have the chance to discrimate in our schools and hospitals

Being a bigot isn't necessarily a crime, or even a justification for dismissal from a job.

Here's an example I was directly involved in. A newly-appointed colleague, a Muslim woman, was asked to work in an office with some engineers, all male. She claimed this would compromise her religion/ culture, and after some humming and ha-ing was moved to work in a different office, with all-female personnel clerks. Everyone more or less happy.

[Macy]

Being a bigot isn't necessarily a crime, or even a justification for dismissal from a job.
The issue isn't the bigotry, it's refusal to perform their function.

[osarusan]

The issue isn't the bigotry, it's refusal to perform their function.

If that woman had said she refused to work with black people, she'd have lost her job. But because her objection is based on religious grounds, more tolerance is shown to her discrimination, all stemming from the ludicrous idea that somebody's religious views are more 'important' (however obnoxious they may be) than other views. For me this is that real issue, at the level of society.


EDIT: regarding GatherRound's comment on the 'newness' of the issue. Granted that she may have taken the job never having expected to be asked to register same-sex couples, whereas she would have expected to work with unmarried couples, mixed-race couples etc. That said, I think it is no excuse whatsoever that her discriminatory attitude is tolerated.

[Macy]

If that woman had said she refused to work with black people, she'd have lost her job.
I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out that disciplinary action wouldn't be taken for holding (and albeit not expressing) discriminatory views.


But because her objection is based on religious grounds, more tolerance is shown to her discrimination, all stemming from the ludicrous idea that somebody's religious views are more 'important' (however obnoxious they may be) than other views. For me this is that real issue, at the level of society.
100% agree. As a state/ society, we've specifically exempted state funded schools and hospitals from equality legislation. A gay teacher can (or will be able to) enter a civil partnership, but they can (completely legally) be sacked for being open about their sexuality in 98% of our primary schools. Similarly a doctor or nurse in most of our hospitals.